It looks like Panasonic is releasing a real competitor to the XF300/305.

http://pro-av.panasonic.net/en/sales_o/broch_pdf/ag-hpx250.pdf

Sadly, it seems they're still using proprietary P2 cards. And it's "scheduled for release in Autumn 2011".

Otherwise, it looks interesting.

I've worked with P2 and it's a very good, very reliable media system. Pricey, but the costs have come down a lot lately.

They have, but they are still overpriced for what they are IMO. The other issue is that many will want to record to AVC Intra at 100 mbs so even though the cards are getting cheaper, they still work out expensive per minute.

I like CF cards myself. Robust, decent size etc. I don't like those tiny/fiddly SDHC things.

No doubt the new Panny will be excellent if you've already invested in the P2 media, otherwise its still an expensive system compared with the competition. The AVCHD version will be a good buy for those who can live without the superior codec.

Don't like P2, the AC160 looks like it is an AVCCAM version of the HPX250 recording to more standard media. The AC130 gives up audio quality, HDSDI outputs, and interchangeability between NTSC and European standards.

I had an HPX500 before I got my XF305, and I still have the P2 cards. This camera is interesting to me because of the AVC-i codec. I don't know what the quality of the lens will be, but it had better be really, really good to match the XF's.
I still like the form factor of the XF better. The 4" monitor's ability to switch to either side is a great feature, one that's come in handy more than once.

The quality of XF300 is the sum of its 2 parts - the codec and the lens. It will be interesting to see if Panny can match the quality of the Canon lens (in the photos it even has 'canon-esque' red stripe. Is it going to be a Leica lens?

Glen just said the same thing while I was writing this...

It will be interesting to see the XF300 vs the HPX-250 as they both have a good codec option and identical chipset specs. If the HPX-250 has better light sensitivity then Panasonic will have an edge.

It will be interesting to see the XF300 vs the HPX-250 as they both have a good codec option and identical chipset specs. If the HPX-250 has better light sensitivity then Panasonic will have an edge.

Panasonic claims it will be very good in low light. I guess this is based on the HPX370. I wonder if it's the exact same chipset?

I had an HPX500 before I got my XF305, and I still have the P2 cards. This camera is interesting to me because of the AVC-i codec. I don't know what the quality of the lens will be, but it had better be really, really good to match the XF's.
I still like the form factor of the XF better. The 4" monitor's ability to switch to either side is a great feature, one that's come in handy more than once.

"Combined with the high-sensitivity, low-noise, 1/3-type 2.2-megapixel U.L.T. (Ultra Luminance Technology) MOS image sensor ..." (excerpted from the Panasonic pdf for the HPX-250) NOTE: it says SENSOR, not sensors.

Unless the Panasonic blurb contains a typo, or represents poor comprehension on the part of the copywriter, the HPX-250 appears to be a single sensor, 1/3" camera.

"Combined with the high-sensitivity, low-noise, 1/3-type 2.2-megapixel U.L.T. (Ultra Luminance Technology) MOS image sensor ..." (excerpted from the Panasonic pdf for the HPX-250) NOTE: it says SENSOR, not sensors.

Unless the Panasonic blurb contains a typo, or represents poor comprehension on the part of the copywriter, the HPX-250 appears to be a single sensor, 1/3" camera.

It's a 3-chipset. Her's a more detailed link:

For Journalists (http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/prModelDetail?storeId=11301&catalogId=13251&itemId=623002&modelNo=Content03232011020433971&surfModel=Content03232011020433971)

I think I read it is the same chipset as the HPX-370. Which can be a good thing or a bad thing depending upon who you talk to!

Light sensitivity is large on my list. After watching the "Coal" series, it seems like the operators had to resort to gain pretty often to get a proper exposure (not just in the mine). Just seems like the XF300s were struggling a bit in that role.

Over 2 years of use I have found P2 to be pretty bullet proof. Works well with my NLE (Edius), What I find really interesting in the HPX250 is the lens (21x), higher resolution and the variety of codecs you can use all the way back to DV. Now if they can just give us a slow-crawl servo zoom control. I shoot with a HPX170 and the slow zoom speed is not slow enough.

I was disappointed to see they're still using P2 media. Yes the prices have come down but they're still too damned expensive.

One solution might be this: Blackmagic Design: HyperDeck Shuttle (http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/hyperdeckshuttle/)

P2 media is certainly expensive but AVC-Intra is a great codec and 10-bit. It's all great on the high-end Pana series. However 10-bit, intra-frame compression at high bit rates aren't too much to get excited about if the camera head is putting out noisy and/or poorly processed signals. The 300 and 370 suffer from some major flaws in this area - and the 370 in particular. Let's hope Pana have sorted this out but - after the signal processing issues on the 300/371 and AF100, I won't be holding my breath and I doubt this new camera is a serious threat to the XF!

I have had P2 for two years now and it is a very good system that is worth paying for as I have not lost a single frame of footage, the E-ser cards are now cheaper and faster and the HPX371 is now approved for BBC HD use so the HPX250 will probably join it soon as the AVC Intra 100 codec with 10 bit 4.2.2 is about as good as it gets.

I would say the 250 is going to be the camera for the Producer shooters who are working in P2 workflows like NBC Universal wanted and freelance stringers as well. There was no smaller camera which matched codec with the 370 type cameras they said they wanted to use.

Why am I thinking that most of the people in this thread who are bagging on P2 have never used P2? P2 is far superior to CF or SD cards, more robust, reliable, faster and the AVC INTRA codec is the most sophisticated camera codec on the market. It is a professional camera. P2 is a professional format. Why would Panasonic want to try to figure out how to try to squeeze that big codec stream onto a cheaper, less reliable, slower form of media?

If you don't like P2, wave goodbye to AVC INTRA and step down to the AVCHD codec and consumer SD flimsy media in the 130 and 160, Panasonic has you covered. Or buy the Canon, it is a good camera as well and I like CF cards better than SD card. Good codec too but I like AVC INTRA better.

Can't believe that people are still complaining about the cost of P2, after the E-Series and all of the price drops. I have been making a living with my P2 cards since 2006 and the complaint has been the same for the entire 5 years, waaahhh, P2 is too expensive. Please. You get what you pay for. I've used SD cards with my audio recorders and consumer camera and CF cards with my Nikons and my 5D MKII. Nothing wrong with either format format but P2 is a league above.

I, for one, am really, really happy that the new higher end 3D camera and the HPX250 DO use P2 cards, bravo Panasonic, that's how it should be, pro codecs using pro media for pros and prosumer/consumer for the "I need to shoot 28 hours of footage a day for weddings and events" crowd. Makes sense. Can't wait to audition the HPX250 on some real projects.

Dan

I have used P2 and I am buying the Canon. P2 holds no advantage and the codecs are more than equivalent in my clients eyes.

Any camera, and or the media is uses, are only superior if you see an appreciable gain over the more affordable alternative and I don't with P2.

Different strokes Kirk, nothing wrong with buying the Canon, it is a nice camera. CF cards, while not as robust as P2 cards, are leagues better than SD cards. The Canon has a great screen, killer lens for a fixed lens camera and nice features. BBC-approved if you ever end up shooting for them.

Same with the codec. AVC INTRA 100 is a more sophisticated and higher resolution than the Canon's codec and it is intraframe but in practice, the Canon's codec is capable of beautiful images and is very robust for an interframe codec.

I think that overall, the new Panasonic AG-HPX250 and the Canon XF300/305 are going to be pretty evenly matched and it will come down to which one has a picture that appeals to you more. Those who own P2 cards like me will naturally skew toward the Panasonic, those who don't will probably skew more toward the Canon because of the perceived lower cost of CF, although really top of the line CF cards aren't that much cheaper than P2 but you do have the option of buying cheap, no name media for the CF format that isn't possible with P2.

If I were in the market for a new camera, I would be totally happy with either unit. I am supposed to be at the top of the list for a review unit of the HPX250 as soon as they are available in a few months and I have shot with the XF300. Thank goodness we have such nice choices to make.

Report back if you buy the Canon, would like to hear how you like it.

Dan

...but you do have the option of buying cheap, no name media for the CF format that isn't possible with P2...Although I would say that isn't a GOOD option. Since Canon just released a firmware update specifically to support some additional Lexar CF cards, it is pretty clear that the make and model of CF cards CAN matter. Some functions might not work with cards not on the Canon approved list.

Along with my new XF105, I bought two 64GB Sandisk UDMA6 cards for $500 apiece. I don't know how that compares with P2, but I don't consider it cheap! Then again, I can record simo to the two cards for record-time redundancy, and being top-flight Sandisk, they'll be useful down the road for just about any device of any brand that uses CF cards. So unfortunately, all these variables don't make a person's decision any easier!

When I look at P2 prices, the memory cost is in line with higher level CF cards. What makes "P2" more expensive is the AVC-Intra codec is most often run at 100mbps. This makes record times a lot shorter for the money compared to a 50mbps codec.

I realise that AVC-Intra comes in a 50mbps variety, but it is not square pixel and does not have as favorable reviews as the 100mbps version.

Panasonic AJ-P2E064XG 64GB E-Series P2 Card AJ-P2E064XG B&H

Not a whole let more expensive.

Dan

P2 is a great professional storage solution. You really don't have to worry while shooting that your material is going to get lost or something in the process of production. I've been using P2 for about a year now and haven't lost anything - except for the one time when I accidentally pressed format:)

I am prepared to pay a premium for a more reliable storage solution. It helps me with the filming process as I don't have to worry about anything going wrong. To me this is worth the extra $$$.

And as Dan points out P2 cards aren't that expensive any more. I've just purchased a 64GB card for 605€ (VAT included).


Oh yes, I to am very happy that Panasonic finally announced a successor to the HPX170/HVX200 series of camcorders. For a while there it wasn't looking to good. But I guess this was inevitable because of all those users who invested in the P2 with the HPX171 and the HVX200 and also the HPX500. Lot's of people waiting for an upgrade!

I really understand both sides of this thread. For me, high bit rates, single frame sharpness, and incredible color make the Panasonic P2 cameras my choice without competition. I too have never lost a frame with P2, except when I failed to press the record button ! On the other hand, some of my best non-video friends watch SD TV on a very small screen and are as happy as can be. For them, high bit rate video would be wasted. It all depends on what you want to do with what you record.

I really understand both sides of this thread. For me, high bit rates, single frame sharpness, and incredible color make the Panasonic P2 cameras my choice without competition. I too have never lost a frame with P2, except when I failed to press the record button ! On the other hand, some of my best non-video friends watch SD TV on a very small screen and are as happy as can be. For them, high bit rate video would be wasted. It all depends on what you want to do with what you record.

Totally agree.. horses for courses.. the various merits can be thrown around till the cows come home.. if your work is high end.. buy P2.. doesnt matter the cost,thats whats required and the rate is higher.. end of story.. if your work doesnt require it.. if your reputation is not down the drain if a card screws up.. or you have to shoot all day long.. get the cheaper stuff.. and you can work for a lower rate.. everyone is happy..
The only worry is when you pay for the best and it screws up.. which doesnt seem to be the case with P2.

IMHO, nothing sad about P2 media. Rock solid.

Any news on a more specific release date?

IMHO, nothing sad about P2 media. Rock solid.

Yup had my P2 system for over two years now and not a single problem!

Well I just had a ‘hands on’ look at the HPX250 at our SMPTE expo here in Sydney. Viewing was done on a Panasonic high end BT-LH2550E 1920x1080 monitor. Putting aside the pluses and minuses of P2 vs. Flash cards here are a few basic observations on the 250 vis-a-vis the Canon 305. In all fairness to Panasonic please bear in mind that these are all subjective observations made over about an hour of exposure to a pre-production 250.

It's big, feels bigger and bulkier than the Canon 305, though no more awkward to hold or use than the 305. Panasonic told us it would now come with a 22x lens not the 21x as originally outlined on the preliminary brochure. No sign of the Leica name on it anywhere. Who makes the lens is any ones guess. With a 72mm filter diameter it looks way smaller than that massive 82mm front end on the Canon. Sharpness? The lens was sharp but not edgy, quite pleasant overall from what I see and judge. Only real observable downside was that from full wide to full zoom there appeared to be a fair amount of fall off. Best I could judge was a good two stops light loss maybe more. Not surprising I guess for a 72mm front end with 22x zoom length. The biggest lens downer for me was the 'endless focus' ring. Round and round with no end stops!! It works but Canon wins hands down in that dept with its switch to manual end stops. The 250’s zoom and iris rings though were fine although the power zoom felt a little bit lacking in control finesse. But there again I'm comparing it to 2/3" type HD lenses with speed regulators and damping. In reality it's pretty good at the price point the camera is aimed at, one cannot argue with that. Just me being a bit picky!

The 250 VF and screen are both good and on a par with the Canon 305. Maybe the Canon might just have the edge on the flip screen. All the 250's I/Os, card slots, 2 x USB, fire wire, SDI, Genlock etc were all on the rear. Well placed and neatly grouped. The audio XLR inputs are up front on the handle assembly near the top mic. I prefer the Canon's lower XLR inputs which keep audio input cables just above the tripod head or just in front of your right hand rather than the handle high inputs on the 250. The high XLR inputs with two cables in them on the 250 could block right side peripheral vision somewhat compared to the Canon.

The 250's ND filter wheel is positive and gives you one clear plus three ND, like most pro cameras, very nice. Panasonic wins here as I feel their ND filter selection wheel, though in an unusual position, beats the Canon everyday. Much more positive to work with feel wise. The on / off / cam / media selection switch is also much better on the 250 over the Canon 300 series with their 'whoops!' overshot it again slide switch.

Much prefer the audio level setting dials on the 305 as they are above one another and approached from the left rear and can be locked in position once set if so desired. The 250 ones are also on the left rear but at the bottom of the camera and line astern. If the camera is on a large tripod head such as a Sachtler 15 / 18 or similar the dials are awkward to get to because those head top plates are wide. It leaves very little finger clearance and makes the audio controls fiddly to work with.

A dislike on both the Canon and the Pana is that both lenses rely on those tiny Lanc type connectors for remote zoom demand. Positively not very nice if you have been used to proper zoom demand controls from Fujinon and Canon. Why they didn't do something like Sony did with their EX series, where you could use a pro zoom demand with the addition of a short multi-pin adapter cable, I don't know. Why those flimsy 3.5mm mini plug things in the back? Poor decision from both companies IMHO. If you have to work on a tripod with your left hand through to the zoom rocker the 305 wins. The rocker is a ‘straighter’ reach through the handle than the 250 rocker, which is further forward. Neither is as impossible to zoom left handed though as an EX3 where the EX rocker is in line with the front part of the carry handle where it joins the camera body. Who designed that? Do any of these companies actually talk to and observe camera ops in the field to look at the ergonomics of camera design? If they do they don't seem to learn a lot from it.

The Panasonic reps told us that the three-chip block in the 250 is one evolution up on the block in the 370. Whatever. It’s pretty impressive up to 12dB, quite quiet smooth and even. With gain up and fast movement there didn't appear to be any trailing softening artefacts like the earlier Panasonic 300 series 1/3" chips. I was quite impressed by the sensitivity displayed by the HPX 250. Not at all bad for a 1/3" three chip camera for sure. The CMOS / MOS, whatever you want to call them, pan /skew error issues also seems to have improved over the earlier Panasonic 300 series. As good as the Canon 305 is, although not super brilliant in low light with gain up, the 250 beats it quite easily at higher gain levels. The added bonus with the 250 is that it has built in flash band compensation in its hardware / firmware. An absolute positive compared to the Canon or Sony cameras for that matter. What did surprise us was when the Panasonic reps stated that the 160 models would not have the flash band correction firmware?? Seeing as that both the 160 and 250 are supposed to share the same front end I would surmise that the 160 would have flash band correction when it is fully released. Time will tell I guess. The only 160 on display was a mock-up in a glass case, no touchy no feely!

For me only an accurate real world test with both of them side by side would really explore the dynamics, strengths and weaknesses of these two mighty little cameras. My main interest would be the lens performance between the Canon 305 and the Panasonic 250 / 160. Most 1/3” chip cameras start to suffer quite serious lens diffraction stopping down past f5.6 with a very noticeable softening of the image. The Canon 305 has proven to be pretty decent down to f8.0. That 305 ‘L’ series lens is one good piece of glass. If the Panasonic HPX250 lens can match the performance of the Canon lens it would be a hard choice to make. Hope someone does a good controlled shootout between the pair once the 250 is released.

Chris Young
Sydney

The added bonus with the 250 is that it has built in flash band compensation in its hardware / firmware. An absolute positive compared to the Canon or Sony cameras for that matter.
I disagree with that. Whilst the flash band compensation (all makes) may do a good job most of the time, it can get fooled occasionally - and then the result is really bad.

But in software you have the choice of approve it or not. If in hardware, that's it - the "correction" gets burnt in at time of shooting, end of story. For that reason, I'd say the Canon/Sony way of doing it is preferable overall.

After experiences with the 301/371, I'd be looking at the chipset and ghosting issues very carefully. The 371 turned out not to be a new chipset, but aggressive inter-frame noise reduction, which was how it appeared to be more sensitive than it actually was. Maybe the 250 chipset has improved matters, but it's certainly a point I'd want to check out very carefully. (On the 371 it was evident even without gain. Didn't really show too obviously on most pictures, but do something like chromakey and it fell apart.)

Yes David, I here what you are saying re the flash banding issues.

I don't have too much experience with CMOS flash problems from a post point of view as ninety-nine percent of the material I work with is from HD CCD cameras and so have never had the problem of trying to correct such problems, have seen them for sure but thankfully never had to fix them.

Having used the earlier 300 Panasonic models I was aware of the smear artefacts which were quite evident at almost any gain position. This smearing is what I was looking for on the 250. Didn't notice any at the time. I was told that the 250 uses a new 3D adaptive noise reduction approach as opposed to the earlier models that used temporal recursive noise reduction algorithms. I guess it's wait and see to see what the factory finally delivers. As I said, it was only a short hands on with the camera so purely some quick subjective observations.

Chris Young
Sydney

I was told that the 250 uses a new 3D adaptive noise reduction approach as opposed to the earlier models that used temporal recursive noise reduction algorithms. I guess it's wait and see to see what the factory finally delivers.
The trouble with any in-camera noise reduction is that whilst it may clean up pictures nicely at first sight, it is not the same as a camera with inherently less noise. Even the best algorithms "clean-up" the most subtle parts of the picture along with the noise. They may not be missed for most viewing - but their absence can be significant when post-processing is attempted. This was the case when trying chroma-keying with the 371 - the noise trails were barely visible on normal pictures - but a problem for the keying process.

It's also worth saying that "3D" in this context means the dimensions of width, height, - and time (frame by frame). In other words, a temporal algorithm. "Adaptive" in this context is generally understood to mean varying the noise reduction averaging to make allowance for motion - if you didn't, did it on a simple frame by frame basis, that's when you get ghost trails on moving items. But doing it in a more complex way - averaging pixels only where there is no motion - must mean no noise reduction where there IS motion. You get noise trails rather than actual "ghost" trails. Undoubtably better, but surely that's the same as the 371 did?

I'm still left feeling that electronic noise reduction may be best left to software in most cases, for the same reasoning as flash banding reduction.

Do we know who is making the lens for this camera?